Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

LBK,

I think it would be most helpful to see the actual quotes by Gebre that you most object to, since I can imagine things he said on the topic could be misinterpreted.

Quote

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.

My point is that there can be a tradition in the church that you can disagree with and still be Orthodox. Another example is the Ring of Solomon. 4th and 6th century writers describe Jerusalem's Church leadership showing it to pilgrims on Good Friday next to the wood of the True Cross. At least one Orthodox moderator I talked with elsewhere proposed that it never happened, and many Orthodox think Solomon never even had a ring to control demons.

Apparently the Church of Jerusalem was promoting a belief in the ring and many people believed it, but it is hardly a required belief for Orthodox. Many, if not most, do not even know about it.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:26:14 AM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

LBK,

I think it would be most helpful to see the actual quotes by Gebre that you most object to, since I can imagine things he said on the topic could be misinterpreted.

Quote

And, the Church does indeed teach that the Mother of God physically died. She did not avoid death. This is expressed over and over in the hymns of the feast, and in the iconography. If she didn't die, then why is Christ shown holding her soul in His hands? The soul is parted from the body when someone dies.

My point is that there can be a tradition in the church that you can disagree with and still be Orthodox. Another example is the Ring of Solomon. 4th and 6th century writers describe Jerusalem's Church leadership showing it to pilgrims on Good Friday next to the wood of the True Cross. At least one Orthodox moderator I talked with elsewhere proposed that it never happened, and many Orthodox think Solomon never even had a ring to control demons.

Apparently the Church of Jerusalem was promoting a belief in the ring and many people believed it, but it is hardly a required belief for Orthodox. Many, if not most, do not even know about it.

Rakovsky, I think that is an excellent point. I may not agree with pacifism and another agree with it, I do not think it is right for someone, who admittedly has not studied the fathers in depth, to throw out quotes as if that quote demonstrates the entirety of their belief or teaching. Which is why my issue is not with Gebres actual stance, it is with his misuse of church fathers, and in the one case demonstrated, the priest whom he clearly selectively embraced to suit his view without considering the rest of the article.

But honestly, that is a great point. I do not think, from what I have read on the matter, that the fathers have ever condemned pacifism or military service, war, violence. They have elaborated on them, when they may be necessary and such, but they have not taken a firm stance either way.

I had to explain to him that the way in which he often speaks would suggest that this IS what the church teaches.

Has he said "This is a teaching of the church?" no, he has not, but he has said other things that would indicate to others that it might be.When you do not, or cannot, differentiate between your opinion and what the church actually teaches, then it becomes confusing for others. I have no problem with him stating that this is his belief and or his opinion, but he consistently words things to make it seem like it is not an opinion or personally held view

When those situations arise it is best to ask the person what he means.

Quote

"War is heresy" is pretty clear to me that he does not believe this to be opinion but fact.

Heresy means a false religious teaching. If war itself is taught as a religious teaching, then perhaps that is true.

Personally I wouldn't choose those words because it allows for (1) the interpretation that it is his belief that all wars are an immoral act against "the" one teaching of the church.

On the other hand, the phrase is open enough to allow for someone to propose that (2) it is just their own belief, expressed in aggressive religious rhetoric, that wars violate important religious principles.

To make a better decision, perhaps you can show me the one paragraph Gebre has written anywhere that you most disagree with.

Anyway, Gebre is Ethiopian Orthodox, so why get bent out of shape? Do you know how many things in the Oriental Churches we could disagree with? They don't even accept many of our infallible(?) ecumenical councils. One of the largest recent conversions to Oriental Orthodoxy was the Ras Tafari group, and in mentioning this I am not downgrading them, but my guess is that Oriental Orthodox are less strict about things.

How many times could we read books by an Oriental Orthodox writer talking about the "Orthodox Church" and disagree? You are very incisive in your thinking, and I would like to see you use your good energy, thinking, and dedication to focus on issues for canonical Churches, like whether our churches should be split over calendars, or whether we should have 8 or more canonical jurisdictions in the US in the first place?

Now if you want to talk about animal sacrifice, circumcision, or Christology in Oriental churches, that's a different story. In fact, you are tempting me to go into the CONTINUANCE OF THE PENTAGONAL RING OF SOLOMON IN ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOXY.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:30:31 PM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

But honestly, that is a great point. I do not think, from what I have read on the matter, that the fathers have ever condemned pacifism or military service, war, violence. They have elaborated on them, when they may be necessary and such, but they have not taken a firm stance either way.

Ioannes,

Maybe there is something to be said about negative views about war in Orthodoxy in general. The approval of wars you mentioned can be explained as fighting off nonChristian domination, while there are rules against clergy fighting in them.

Isn't this a contrast to the Crusades, where fighting in a non-Latin country on behalf of the Latin Church was seen as holy, and engaged in by a monastic order? The Crusaders, like Teutonic knights also sacked Constantinople and other Eastern cities in slavic lands. But Orthodox countries didn't launch "holy wars" against the west, as I understand it. The idea of "holy war" seems to be much more of a RC/protestant medieval idea.

So although the Church has even promoted wars (like against the Mongols and Turks) and the Byzantine emperor asked the canonical Roman church to intervene with a crusade, perhaps there is something valuable to be said about aversion to war or negative ideas about it in Orthodoxy in general.

Take care.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 12:28:34 PM by rakovsky »

Logged

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Yes, but, not everyone accuses the apposing viewpoint of heresy.

LBK explains the symbolism and meaning of the icons, their canonicity or lack thereof, however, she never has accused someone who apposes her teaches of not being Orthodox because of their differing views.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Yes, but, not everyone accuses the apposing viewpoint of heresy.

LBK explains the symbolism and meaning of the icons, their canonicity or lack thereof, however, she never has accused someone who apposes her teaches of not being Orthodox because of their differing views.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

LOL! I would be impressed to see proof that some of the icons in the Schlock icon thread are canonically Orthodox icons.

I believe, it would be easier to find sources to support her statements, than to refute them.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

...as I am certain some priests considered Gebre's comments to be okay.

So, there you have it.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Gebre has put forth his ideas on various matters and proclaimed them to be inviolable teachings of the Church, selectively quoting from the Fathers to suit his case. He is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to go further and denounce as un-Orthodox anyone who believes otherwise, as he has indeed done on this forum, and, it seems, in his book.

Don't you do that when you post about icons? Doesn't everyone do that?

Iconoclasm is a declared heresy, the Church has anathematized the iconoclasts, and continues to do so to this day at the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Many aspects of iconography I have written about over the years are in the light of formal and universal declarations by the Church.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

And is she an ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

Supply proof that I have been in error when I post on iconography. As for the "heretic" label, yes, I have often called this or that "iconographic" image heretical in content, whether painted in honest ignorance or deliberately to promote a cause or ideology. Do you object to that?

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

I believe it was St. Theodore the Studite that once argued that a divorce was heresy...

Not that I'm saying it was in that situation. Maybe. Probably.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

And is she an ecumenical council to declare that? Isn't overauthority of some laymen the problem being discussed in this thread?

I'm not sure that all authoritative issues need to rise to the level of Hierarch, Synod, or Ecumenical Council. There are generally accepted principles and standards that can be applied by all - otherwise, we would be paralyzed waiting for each level of administration to address the myriad of questions and challenges that arise day-to-day.

Along these lines, I can understand why you would feel this way about LBK's participation in icon discussions as the tone may seem similar to Gebre's usual style. However, I find that the great difference in substantive approach between the two negates any apparent similarity. LBK speaks about icons from a researched and reasonable position that is in line with the overwhelming majority of Orthodox sources and tradition on the subject, and keeps responses only to discussions of the substance of the icons themselves and the underlying theological problems seen in them. Gebre's approach to the pacifist issue is more problematic considering the history of the Church-state relationship and the willingness to bless the soldiers (even if we don't bless the plans, ideals, etc.). I am sympathetic to his position - I believe that war is never justified from a Christian moral POV, that it always must be repented of (since the taking of a life is a traumatic event for the soul regardless of the justification for doing it), and that we don't do a good enough job of promoting a peaceful agenda. But I would never take it to the level of implying (or openly stating) that it is a dogmatic truth of Christianity that we must always be pacifists. It is an untenable position.

(p.s. I only highlighted the two individuals to contrast good and bad approaches to dogmatic questions, NOT to start a debate about either user personally.)

Anyway, Gebre is Ethiopian Orthodox, so why get bent out of shape? Do you know how many things in the Oriental Churches we could disagree with? They don't even accept many of our infallible(?) ecumenical councils. One of the largest recent conversions to Oriental Orthodoxy was the Ras Tafari group, and in mentioning this I am not downgrading them, but my guess is that Oriental Orthodox are less strict about things.

How many times could we read books by an Oriental Orthodox writer talking about the "Orthodox Church" and disagree? You are very incisive in your thinking, and I would like to see you use your good energy, thinking, and dedication to focus on issues for canonical Churches, like whether our churches should be split over calendars, or whether we should have 8 or more canonical jurisdictions in the US in the first place?

Now if you want to talk about animal sacrifice, circumcision, or Christology in Oriental churches, that's a different story. In fact, you are tempting me to go into the CONTINUANCE OF THE PENTAGONAL RING OF SOLOMON IN ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOXY.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!

I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person. I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives. I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.

I know. Can't we all just go back to talking about the Ring of King Solomon in Ethiopian Orthodoxy?

Quote

Two of the symbols within Rastafarianism are the royal ring of Haille Selassie and the Rastafarianism bible, the Holy Piby.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church gave the ring to Haille Selassie when he pledged loyalty to the church. The ring was said to have belonged to King Solomon who had given it to the queen of Sheba so that she in turn could give it to their son prince Menelik I of Ethiopia. He became the first King in a dynasty that lasted for more than 3000 years and ended with the death of Haille Selassie. When he died in 1975 the ring disappeared.

I know. Can't we all just go back to talking about the Ring of King Solomon in Ethiopian Orthodoxy?

You should take it up in the thread you started for that purpose, not derail this thread.

This.

Plus, as I recall, that had less to do with the Ring of Solomon and Ethiopian Orthodoxy in particular but with the Ring and Orthodoxy in general. How important can this thing possibly be if almost no one has heard of it? I have a graduate theological degree, and your post was the first time I ever heard of such a thing. We have more collective awareness of digging up dead bishops and seating their vested bones on thrones in order to "preside" over synods, "ordain" people, etc. than we do about Solomon's Ghostbuster Ring. It really does seem arcane even among the arcane. Oh well.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!

I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person. I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives. I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.

Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.

A heresy is, by definition, a wrong belief. War isn't a belief, it is an ongoing action. There are cold wars, hot wars, technology wars, etc., but those are actions taken by one group against another. It would be like saying "sleeping through liturgy is heresy" or "stealing is heresy". It may be sinful, but it is not heresy.

This relates directly to the issue at hand. Gebre is more often than not unclear in his statements. He will say "this book or post is an opinion" but then makes a matter of fact statement, and in this particular case it is unbelievably general. For instance, his pacifist stance itself makes little to no sense, he will say I am a pacifist but not a passive-ist, which makes little to no sense to me. I asked him about that statement and he said that he adheres to the original definition of pacifism, before it was perverted. Also, the man enjoys football and boxing, two very violent sports. I would argue that violence makes far less sense in those arenas and is far less acceptable than defending a nation being aggressed against or a person being victimized, not Gebre!

I continue to be uncomfortable singling out one person. I'm sure anyone could find what they perceive to be hypocrisies in any one of our lives. I don't see liking boxing and football incompatible with pacifism unless they start having fights to the death.

Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.

Indeed. And if the object of a "sport" such as boxing is to knock the snot out of your opponent (if not knock him out entirely), how is this not violence?

How important can this thing possibly be if almost no one has heard of it? I have a graduate theological degree, and your post was the first time I ever heard of such a thing. We have more collective awareness of digging up dead bishops and seating their vested bones on thrones in order to "preside" over synods, "ordain" people, etc. than we do about Solomon's Ghostbuster Ring. It really does seem arcane even among the arcane. Oh well.

Funny.

Logged

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Pacifism is defined as all violence, including war, are unjustifiable.

There's different definitions.

Pacifism is opposition to war and violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud (1864–1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. (The Abolition of War: the Peace Movement in Britain, 1914-1919 by Keith Robbins. University of Wales Press, 1976. ISBN 978-0-7083-0622-2 (p.10)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....

Oh, dear........

Indeed. The image was commissioned for the then-upcoming soccer Euro 2012 tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine. It is a complete disgrace to the clergy who participated in the commissioning and blessing of this monstrosity, and to the iconographer who painted it.

Much could be written about the iconographic nonsense present in this image, from the ball between Christ’s hands (looks like He’s just saved a goal – I can hear the stampede of team managers rushing to sign up the Holy Goalie – and what a great slogan: “We have GOD on our side!”), to the Mother of God pointing to the soccer pitch as the way to salvation.

All that’s needed now is for some clown to write an akathist to the Mother of God “Patroness of Soccer” …. Don't laugh, folks - akathists have been written for Rasputin.

By your logic, this makes this image suitable for veneration. Ri-iiight ....

Oh, dear........

Indeed. The image was commissioned for the then-upcoming soccer Euro 2012 tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine. It is a complete disgrace to the clergy who participated in the commissioning and blessing of this monstrosity, and to the iconographer who painted it.

Much could be written about the iconographic nonsense present in this image, from the ball between Christ’s hands (looks like He’s just saved a goal – I can hear the stampede of team managers rushing to sign up the Holy Goalie – and what a great slogan: “We have GOD on our side!”), to the Mother of God pointing to the soccer pitch as the way to salvation.

All that’s needed now is for some clown to write an akathist to the Mother of God “Patroness of Soccer” …. Don't laugh, folks - akathists have been written for Rasputin.

Don't be ridiculous. It would be the Patroness of Football. Soccer is just a silly American word.

We are not talking about iconoclasm. We are talking about saints directing hands in allegedly wrong (not-Orthodox) direction.

What on earth are you talking about?

Quote

Which of those you shared none. Gebre is better in this case than you since he tries to validate his claims somehow.

You've been reading my posts with your eyes firmly shut, then. Obviously my use of scripture, hymnography, conciliar rulings, history and patristic writings to support what I write isn't good enough for you.

The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the time of the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy. Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ. God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God. If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy. Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ. God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God. If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates. If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy. Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ. God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God. If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates. If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

HERETIC!

We should be annointing one another's feet with oil and cleaning them with our hair and tears in rememberance of the woman who came in penitence to Christ. Do you now deny the necessity of repentance!?!

Cold feet is just part of the ascetical practice. Do you now deny ascetical worship as well? You might as well go join Joel Osteen.

As for anointing each other's feet with oil....don't get overly zealous.

Remember, she anointed Christ's feet, not Joe's or Sam's.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

But do feet stink naturally, or only because we keep them covered with socks and shoes most of the time? I am from a tradition where we never wear shoes inside the nave, and I haven't noticed any smell of stinking feet.

One point of which shoe-wearers are not often cognizant is where their shoes have been before they enter the nave. People step in mud, dirty water, animal feces, roads covered with oil from automobiles, etc. And then, they come to church wearing those shoes. They approach the chalice wearing those shoes. If they are the priest or the bishop, they stand at the holy altar with those shoes. I understand that shoe-wearers don't think of those things when they put their shoes on, but frankly I am scandalised every time I see it.

There have been times where I visited EO churches and the priest allowed me to enter the altar area, or where I was even allowed to commune because economy was applied. I always took off my shoes to approach the chalice or enter the altar, even if I kept them on otherwise so as not to look completely out of place. I don't know how else to do it. I don't know why you wouldn't take off your shoes...

Quote

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates. If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

The denial of the dogma of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is a declared heresy. Omitting the stars since the ecumenical council which declared her ever-virginity as dogma is, in effect, denying her ever-virginity.

The denial of that Christ is God is a declared heresy. Wearing shoes during the Divine Liturgy is, in effect, denying the divinity of Christ. God told Moses to remove his sandals because he was on holy ground, being in the presence of God. If the Mysteries are truly the body and blood of Christ, and yet we keep our shoes on in it's presence, we are denying the divinity of Christ.

Coptics, here I come!

I have often wondered about the whole shoe thing.

I can only imagine that feet stink, and it would be more of a respect not to "air" them before God.

Plus, a vast number of faithful live in freezing climates. If our noses, which are a few feet up from the ground, freeze while in church, imagine what bare feet on the cold floor would do.

HERETIC!

We should be annointing one another's feet with oil and cleaning them with our hair and tears in rememberance of the woman who came in penitence to Christ. Do you now deny the necessity of repentance!?!

Cold feet is just part of the ascetical practice. Do you now deny ascetical worship as well? You might as well go join Joel Osteen.

As for anointing each other's feet with oil....don't get overly zealous.

Remember, she anointed Christ's feet, not Joe's or Sam's.

Your heretical teachings just get worse and worse! Did you not know that we are to see Christ in all who we come in contact with? I see now that you are anti-Trinitarian and do not even believe in the existence of God the Son. May St. Matthew rebuke your sinfulness through his passage of the sheep and the goats.

Quote

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

I'm not sure if even Joel Osteen will accept you now. Oh wait...as long as you send him a donation, he probably will.